The Men Behind Hitler:
(Chapter I: Surplus People)

The last installment of this thread can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.

This writer's words will be in light red font.

The basic reasoning behind the state of mind we are about to see in action has its origins in the theories of Malthus, Darwin and Galton and the development of their ideas by their "scientific" disciples.

Malthus

Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) was an English political economist and historian who in 1798 published a book called "An Essay on the Principle of Population". This document started a reaction against the earlier writings of Godwin, Condorcet and others, who reinforced the principles of emancipation and enlightenment which ensued after the French Revolution. Malthus' theories put forward here and in later works have a surprising influence even today.

He proposed that poverty, and thereby also vice and misery, are unavoidable because population growth will always exceed food production. The checks on population growth were wars, famine, and diseases. Malthus proposed "sexual abstinence" for the working class as a means by which the population excess could be diminished and a balance achieved. In this way, the "lower" social classes were made totally responsible for social misery.

This solution was based on the hypothesis that population increased in geometric progression (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 and so on) while food production increased in arithmetic progression (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on). The situation already existing in his time would get worse, according to his claims and would reach alarming proportions. His basic idea can be shown pictorially in the following diagram.

Picture here a graph whereby the "population growth rate" arrow rapidly approaches 90 degrees in short order while the "food supply" arrow takes three to four times as long (or longer) to gradually approach 45 degrees and you get the idea of what the picture would look like if it was posted here.

Malthus was one of the earliest, but not the last, to turn away from the economic solutions of that period, and seek to solve social problems, such as poverty, through the use of biological measures. His premises, presented as facts and his figures with an air of mathematical authority, were impressive and convincing, although his ideas were based solely on some small travels and minor observations. However, despite the grand display and presentation, some of his critics realised the absurdity of it all. Both of the growth-rates were arbitrary, for there were no statistics on population increase or food production, before or during this time, which would have permitted a forecast for the future. Apart from this, no one knew just how much land was actually cultivated or partially cultivated and how much was barren.

Malthus' presentations had the impact of a bomb; his mathematical and geometrical explanations and diagrams had a hypnotic effect, and only a few asked on what his claims were actually based. His theory has retained its persuasive power to such an extent that many of our present authorities use it as a basis of operation. Yet neither Malthus nor his later disciples ever managed to put forward any scientific proof for his theory, and in fact excellent scientists have at various times disproven Malthus' theory and the ideology resulting from it.

However, with the book, Malthus created an atmosphere which not only prevented a real solution to the social problems, but also promoted the repressive legislation which worsened the conditions of the poor in England. It was reasoned that better conditions for the poor would only encourage them to further propagate, putting those who were capable of work at a disadvantage. Malthusianism then moved forward to achieve its greatest triumph in 1834 with a new law providing for the institution of workhouses for the poor, in which the sexes were strictly separated to curb the otherwise inevitable over-breeding. This type of thinking has an inherent devaluation of human life through fear that the ever increasing population of lower classes will devour the more civilised or "better" people. This kind of philosophy, of course, urged the calling forth of drastic measures to handle the problem. The first resurgence took place a hundred and fifty years after his death, resulting in the birth-control movement, a principle which is based on Malthusianism. Following the Second World War, the idea was again taken up and today receives new momentum in the "population explosion" campaigns.

In other words, the "population explosion" advocates are descendants of Thomas Malthus and uncritical parroters of his outlook.

Darwin

Charles Robert Darwin [1809-1882], English naturalist. After years of research work formulated in 1859 his theory of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Race In the Struggle for Life". Without at that time going into a study of mankind, he tried to explain the development of life-forms in terms of a struggle for existence. The result of this struggle would be a natural selection of those species and races who were to triumph over those weaker ones who would perish.

During his research he came across Malthus' essay and suddenly saw that his own theory could be expanded to include all life in the struggle for existence that would be inevitable if food production was to lag behind the growth-rate of the population. And so Darwin took over the false doctrine of Malthus and made it a cornerstone of his own theory. In 1871 he published his next large work entitled "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex" which was based on his earlier book but which dealt almost exclusively with man. In it he came to the reasonable conclusion that both in physical structure and physiological behaviour, there was no difference between man and other mammals. However, the idea that this was also applicable to mental and moral qualities, shows that he was on unsound ground. Although Darwin was an excellent naturalist, he was not a very good philosopher. In his attempt to explain the social development of Man as a struggle for existence and selection through natural means, he compounded the error that Malthus had made by yet another attempt to apply a biological solution to philosophical and social problems. Darwin's speculations, to be found in his "Notebook", that thought was a brain secretion, is completely without basis.

Modern theories of evolution finally succeeded in clarifying this confusion by separating the development of man into two different steps, animal and psycho-social. Despite this, Darwin's theses and those of his followers have been very influential over a long period. They caused a significant shift in the social thinking of that time, the consequences of which can still be felt today.

Darwin's natural selection theory coupled with Malthus' theory of population explosion if taken together implied some kind of social mechanism being put in place to weed out the "undesirables" from the population. Enter Francis Galton into the picture.

Galton

Francis Galton [1822-1911] was an English psychologist and a half-cousin of Darwin. Very erratic in his thought processes, he was unable to complete research in even one area. Hardly would he begin a research project before throwing out a theory and then move on to a new field leaving the proof of the theory to others. He was so fascinated with Darwin's theory, that he spent an unusually lengthy period of years trying to prove that mental abilities were hereditary. In 1869 he published his book "Hereditary Genius" and in 1883 "Enquiries into Human Faculty". In his "Enquiries" he undertook to transfer his hereditary theories from the individual to the whole race.

Galton extended Darwin's theory of natural selection into a concept of deliberate social intervention, which he held to be the logical application of evolution to the human race. Galton was by no means satisfied to let evolution take its course freely. Having decided to improve the human race through selective breeding, brought about through social intervention, he developed a subject which he called "Eugenics", the principle of which was that by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock, the whole race could be improved.

By combining the theories of Malthus and Darwin, Galton created the theory he titled as "eugenics" which advocated attempts to create a super race by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock. Hopefully the reader is starting to see the sordid direction which this path is starting to tread...

Social Darwinism

The pseudo-science resulting from the fusion of Darwin's evolutionary theory with social and political theories.

Charles Darwin was a very humane man, who probably would have been greatly enraged at the extremes to which his theories were taken. He had made a tragic error in attempting to extend the biological law of the struggle for survival to the social life of man. In so doing he played into the hands of "experts" of later generations, by giving them the impressive scientific justification for their barbaric actions of "natural selection", "preservation of favoured races" and the "struggle for life". It was passages of the following type in "The Descent of Man" that would have been most welcomed by them:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Social theories based on the "survival of the fittest" had been circulating before the publication of "Origin of Species", and even before Darwin himself. Herbert Spencer, a social theorist and scientist had already propounded the social implications of this theory some years before the appearance of Darwin's book:

"The well-being of existing humanity, and the unfolding of it into this ultimate perfection, are both secured by the same beneficent, though severe discipline, to which the animate creation at large is subject; a discipline which is pitiless in the working out of good; a felicity- pursuing law which never swerves for the avoidance of partial and temporary suffering. The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong... are the decrees of a large far-seeing providence..."

Consider what is noted above as it pertains to the contemporary example of Terri Schiavo.

[O]r, in plain language, the fittest survive. In a later edition of "Origin of Species", Darwin himself described Spencers "survival of the fittest" phrase as being more accurate than his own "natural selection". Finally, in Darwin's work the social theorists had found the scientific rationale that lent respectability to their arguments. This fusion came to be known as Social Darwinism, a movement that gained increasing momentum with its demands for social legislation in accordance with the principle of "the fittest must survive", and its effects were calamitous for later generations.

And what is the attempts to kill Terri Schiavo but an echo of the utilitarian weltanschauung that her life is to be seen as valuable only to the extent of what valued" on what she "produces"???

Racism and Racial Hygiene

Although the beginnings of racism lie far back in history, its actual modern development really begins with the Frenchman, Arthur Count de Gobineau [1816-1882] who published his classic racist pronouncement "Essay on the Inequality of Human Races" in 1853-1857. Greatly misinterpreted by others, he wrote in a romantic fashion of a fair-haired Aryan race that was superior to all others. Gobineau maintained that remnants of this race could be found in various countries in Europe constituting a tiny racial aristocracy decaying under the overwhelming weight of inferior races. He made no special claims for the superiority of German Aryans, nor markedly denigrated other races. His racialism embraced not so much the races as the classes, the aristocracy versus the proletariat. Nevertheless, his ideas were widely distorted to fit the racial superiority theories of others. Hardly noticed in his own country, he enjoyed great popularity in Germany.

Please reflect for a moment on the underlined passages of the previous paragraph.

As we have already seen, an amalgamation of ideas occurred shortly before the turn of the century. Darwinism, united with social theories, became Social Darwinism, which in turn included Eugenics. In 1890 Gobineau's book was revived and in 1894 the Gobineau Association was founded in Germany. His writings were popularised at this time by the Pan-Germans, an extremely nationalistic and anti-Jewish group who, though small in numbers, were very strong, their members including a high proportion of teachers.

In other words, this idea was advanced into greater society by academia -in this case a Frenchman who became very popular in Germany in the nineteenth century by propounding racial superiority theories of a so-called "Aryan race."

In 1899, Gobineau's disciples Houston Stewart Chamberlain [1855-1927], an Englishman holding German citizenship, published his two volume work, "The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century", in Germany. It proved immensely popular and ran into many editions. Departing from Gobineau's rather flowery ideas, he upheld the German race to be the purest form of Aryanism and damned the inferior races, the Jews and Negroes, as degenerate.

Chamberlain combined the scientific fact of the existence of different races with an enriched mystical significance attached to one race, the Aryans, who had supposedly existed since the dawn of time. These mystical Aryans were held to be responsible for all the great cultures of the past, each of which had declined because the Aryans allowed other races to intermix with them resulting in the fall of that civilisation-Egypt, Greece, Rome all perished.

This writer is wondering if the reader will note the seeds of white supremacy and (by logical extension) white separatism which are planted in the above paragraph.

Eugenics, Social Darwinism and Racial Hygiene now join hands, although Eugenics is the only one of these that one could manage to call a science. It is a movement which has attracted many medical men, and these have given the scientific means of assisting Social Darwinism in its endeavours to favour the fittest, and Racial Hygienists in their efforts to improve the race.

From this point on, Eugenics, Social Darwinism and Racial Hygiene fused so strongly that it would prove a useless endeavour to try to differentiate between them.

To be Continued...

The Men Behind Hitler:
(Introduction)

This is a continuation of the thread located HERE.

For those who want to see what is really behind the attempt to exterminate Terri Schiavo -and why those who promote her demise need to be vigorously opposed- the following work will outline the basics of a weltanschauung of the human being that unfortunately did not die with the fall of Nazi Germany but continues today in the pseudo-"progressivist" movement. The text of the author will be in black font and any interjections on the part of this writer will be in regular font. Without further ado, the introduction of the work The Men Behind Hitler as translated from the original German

This book began as an attempt on my part to gain an insight into certain missing or obscure chapters in the history of our country.

Much has already been written, both here and abroad, many attempts made to identity the motives, but I have always felt that the whole story has never been told.

As my inquiries and researches advanced, I began to realise that I had stumbled on something more significant than originally thought.

Germany had not only victimised (and I will not attempt to absolve my country) but had itself become a victim of something far more dangerous and far-reaching than National Socialism, racialism or any other ism. Its foundations were laid in the early 20th century culminating during the period that Hitler set Europe ablaze and it used the insanity of war to disguise much of its activities.

The post-war reforms served as a new cover, and the kernel of a fresh social onslaught lies waiting in several countries today. I discovered that the events in Germany were the background to a few notable facts concerning the 60s and 70s.

It was at this point that I was forced to make a difficult decision. Obviously I had to make the story known to others to warn them, but should I wait until my research was complete (I had no way of knowing how much longer this might take) or should I now publish the facts I had so far collected?

I decided on the latter course. But more work needs to be done, more evidence must be collected, and more must be written. Having revealed part of the truth I hope others will wish to find out more and make their findings known.

To be Continued...

On an Upcoming Weblog Series:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was pulled today, it seems appropriate to this writer to delve into the uncomfortable historical parallels of what we are seeing today in the case of Ms. Schiavo and those who want to see her dead. But before that is done, a very brief reminder of something that has been a recurring theme at this humble weblog virtually since its founding is necessary. That theme of course involves the enunciation of, further development of, and practical application of law and its role in a just society.

To start with, those who think that this is merely some eccentric obsession of the present writer (or that too much time is spent on those themes at this humble weblog) need to recognize that Our instincts on this matter -be they in the situation of Terri Schiavo or several others noted at various times- have been correct all along. We have perceived for a long time that what is needed to actually win the culture war (rather than merely postpone the day of execution) is a consistent principle of ethics tied to a consistent set of guidelines for keeping law within its proper bounds in society.{1}

For it is precisely because the law is not properly in check down in Florida{2} which is why people such as Judge Greer hold the power of life and death in his hands for people such as Terri Schiavo. He should not even be in that position to begin with!!! But he is because the bulk of those who fight in defense of legitimate rights (as opposed to pseudo-"rights") do not know their right hand from their left with an alarming degree of frequency. That is the reason why this writer decided early in the life of this weblog to (i) run in full a series on Claude Frederic Bastiat's monumental theory on The Law, (ii) follow it up with explicit (as opposed to previously more implicit) applications of that theory while (iii) developing further in the process some additional criteria for its application in modern society.

In other words, there is a method to Our apparent madness here at Rerum Novarum. And for that reason, it bears reiterating anew the reason why those of Us at Rerum Novarum have sought to provide a a consistent principle for argumentation on the fundamental rights of man for the past couple of years. What brought about this decision was the rapid escalation of situations such as this where (i) a fundamental right was being violated by a perverse application of the law and (ii) the manifested inconsistencies that permeate the overall outlooks of those who have tried to defend one such right while undermining other rights that require simultaneous defense if their chosen right is to be truly advanced and not undermined. (Either explicitly or by logical implication.)

Now truthfully is not the time to reiterate what the fundamental rights of man are and how they must be defended together -that is a subject covered in many a thread here at Rerum Novarum in the past. (Not to mention future expansions on this theme where it is warranted by the present writer.) No, at this time it suffices to merely point out in brief that no true right is given its full justice when it is dichotomized from other similarly true rights in the manner so common with single-issue advocates. It has been noted by the present writer on numerous occasions that this kind of myopia is profoundly counterproductive; ergo it only needs to be mentioned in passing at the present time. And as that has now been achieved, let us move to the true purpose of this post and also to the series that will follow it in short order.

The purpose of this post is not to retread that ground with previously enunciated theories aimed at long term solutions to these problems -but instead to touch on them and then move towards a shorter term plan of action for the present time. For a woman is is being killed at the present time and expository disputations are not properly utilized here. No, at this time it is important to strip away the pretentions that clothe those who in true Orwellian double-speak fashion are claiming to "care" for someone whom they are trying to kill out of a twisted sense of "compassion."

It is time to lay bare what these people really are and from which polluted wells they have drawn sustinence for their operative points of view. In doing this, let it be noted in advance that those who are affiliated with the BlogsforTerri movement can feel free to circulate what I am about to post sequentially in whatever medium as they see fit. The purpose here is to help paint with the appropriate colours the true picture of those who want to see this woman dead. But enough ado and let us get to the first part of this thread.

The author of the work that will be reproduced in its totality here at Rerum Novarum in the coming days is Bernhard Schreiber. The following is a brief outlining of whom he is and what he has sought to accomplish in the writing of the work you are about to read:

Bernhard Schreiber was born in 1942 in Stuttgart after his father died in action as an officer of the Luftwaffe. After his education in Germany he studied journalism in America and travelled extensively as a freelance journalist. During the last five years he has been researching the material for this book and decided to publish the German Edition as a first result of his research. He will be continuing his research with colleagues and he has received a grant from a large university for this purpose. When his work does not take him abroad he lives with his family in Germany.

As this work was translated from German, the following is a note from the translator:

When I first heard of Bernhard Schreiber's work I was convinced that a work along these lines was needed in English.

I met Mr. Schreiber and he consented to his work being translated and I am, in fact, indebted to him for his help in ensuring that his exact meaning was put into English. It is refreshing to work with an author who can cross check your translation. He has edited certain errors and improved the documents section which he felt was lacking in the original.

My thanks to C.S. Carr for his assistance with the translation of the documents and to Miss P. Carter for the typing and retyping.

H. R. Martindale

The following is a brief note specifying the manifested intention of the author viz. the distribution of his work:

It is my desire that this book be distributed as widely as possible; and thus I hereby not only give my consent, but urge the distribution, translation, publication, reprinting and quoting of this book in part or in whole by any person, group or organisation that may wish to so do.

Unfortunately my financial situation made it impossible to distribute this book as widely as I would have liked, and I hope that the step I have taken will inspire others to actively participate in this German warning to the world.

And indeed We at Rerum Novarum will be posting this book in its entirety in the hope that somehow, someone out there who can influence this situation will be given either the courage to act or (in the case of the enemies of Terri) the grace of repentence and conversion. Perhaps in doing this, the readers will be much more disposed to take seriously what We have been saying all along about (i) the fundamental rights of man, (ii) how fundamental rights are properly discerned from pseudo-"rights", and (iii) the role of law in a just society.

But now, it seems appropriate to post the dedication of this work and move onto the first part of the work so that is what will be done:

This book is humbly dedicated to the memory of countless ordinary people - those men, women, children and babies of many races and beliefs, whose lives were taken because they were considered less than perfect and, therefore, unworthy to live. I hope that this small book will serve in its own way to keep their memory alive and that it will help to remind us all of the price we have to pay when extremists have the power to decide upon our right to live.

And finally, this writer would be remiss in not thanking Liz Toolan for making this material accessible for the purpose whereby it will be used at Rerum Novarum in the coming days and weeks. The first installment of this work will be put up sometime tomorrow time (and God) willing.

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} Furthermore, these principles must be (i) capable of separating the wheat from the tares in the culture war and (ii) they must be in a form that is accessible to (and applicable by) all people of good will -be they people of faith or not.

{2} To say nothing about the lack of law being kept within its proper domains in other states of the Union and the federal government of course.

Points to Ponder:
(And Some St. Patrick's Day Toasts)

Here's to a long life and a merry one.
A quick death and an easy one.
A pretty girl and an honest one.
A cold beer-and another one! [Traditional Irish toast]


May you make it to heaven thirty minutes before the devil knows you are dead. [Jack DeLisle]

Points to Ponder:
(On the Irish)

What shall I say about the Irish?
The utterly impractical, never predictable,
Something irascible, quite inexplicable, Irish.

Strange blend of shyness, pride and conceit
And stubborn refusal to bow in defeat.
He's spoiling and ready to argue and fight,
Yet the smile of a child fills his soul with delight.

His eyes are the quickest to well up in tears,
Yet his strength is the strongest to banish your fears.

His faith is as fierce as his devotion is grand
And there's no middle ground on which he will stand.

He's wild and he's gentle, he's good and he's bad,
He's proud and he's humble, he's happy and sad.

He's in love with the ocean, the earth and the skies,
He's enamored with beauty wherever it lies.

He's victor and victim, a star and a clod,
But mostly he's Irish and in love with his God. [Jody Victor]

Briefly on Iraq, WMD's, and Another Pseudo-"Progressivist" War Dogma Bites the Dust:

It has been well-noted at this weblog the views of your humble servant on the entire WMD subject. Indeed, all the reader has to do is peruse the links of the side margin or the weblog's archives to find several statements on this matter. To save on time, this writer will point out two representative threads on the subject which pertain directly to what will be dealt with in this post (i) a points to ponder segment from December 14, 2003 and (ii) this thread from September 18, 2004. All of this is noted because what We at Rerum Novarum have long maintained on the WMD subject -that there were munitions but they were looted- finally receives the equivalent of an imprimatur from the mainstream media (MSM).

Indeed, as Little Green Footballs points out, the Old New York Times is finally publishing articles admitting to as much. They are only a couple of years behind the curve here -a tacit confirmation of the value of the blogosphere and other alternative media outlets. But it is better that they come to the party late than not arrive at all.

Nonetheless, it bears noting that those who are hoping that the Times or any other MSM outlet will "announce" in an article or three the sites in Syria where so much of the missing munitions are probably located...well...at this rate, it will probably take eight to twelve more months (or longer) for the NYT and the rest of the MSM to catch up and report on that. Those of Us who already know this will have to work hard to mask our "told ya so's" at that time -but then again, that is par for the course.

And finally, those who have played the "Bush Lied" and "No WMD's" canard all this time are not likely as a rule to admit that they were wrong. No, they will continue in their end justifies the means style of "reasoning" that anything to discredit President Bush and his Administration is fair game -however erroneous the assertions they make happen to be. These sorts are not about to issue any mea culpas no matter how many times their positions are soundly confuted -for reason and logic are not what they rely on to arrive at their positions; ergo it is not by those means that they will be brought to see their errors -if indeed they ever are. (Though hope springs eternal of course.)

More Voting Errors in King County Documented (courtesy of Sound Politics)

"JunkYard BLOG" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Ten Part Thread)

As is common with this feature, the JYB material will be in purple font and sources italicized. The words of this writer will be in regular font.

WHAT CAUSES THE HOLE IN THE OZONE, GLOBAL WARMING, AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SCARED OF?

Shockingly enough, the Sun:

A dramatic thinning of Earth's protective ozone layer above the Arctic last year was the result of intense upper-level winds and an extra dose of space weather, scientists said Tuesday.

Ozone, which screens out some of the Sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation, declined by up to 60 percent in the stratosphere over high northern latitudes in the spring of 2004. Officials issued a health warning earlier this year for residents of the far North.

In a new study, scientists conclude that an intense round of solar storms around Halloween in 2003 was at the root of the problem. Charged particles from the storms triggered chemical reactions that increased the formation of extra nitrogen in the upper stratosphere, some 20 miles up. Nitrogen levels climbed to their highest in at least two decades.

Imagine that. The Sun effects weather here on earth. Amazing...continued...

In other words, these sorts of shifts are cyclical in nature. This is something that the present writer has said repeatedly over the years -albeit not in this particular forum. Nonetheless, it is always nice to see Our intuitions confirmed by scientific findings years later. Moving from science to politics...


WHEN THE DEMOCRATS

are pinning their hope for survival on the antics of North Korea and Iran--and the failure of the nascent move toward democracy through the Middle East--they have ceased to be a relevant and patriotic political force. They just don't care how the war turns out if it means they lose some street cred. Check out this exchange on the Jon Stewart Show between Stewart and former Clintonista Nancy Soderberg:

Stewart: This could be unbelievable!

Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's--

Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's--

Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.

Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.

Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.

Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.

Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--

Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!

Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is--

In other words, she holds out hope that things go badly with Iran and North Korea for political reasons. For those who are stunned by what was just said, here it is again: she blatantly admits to John Stewart that she hopes that things go bad for political reasons -noting that in North Korea and Iran this is still possible. Anyone who would wish ill on this country to gain political points for their particular weltanschauung is not only not worth taking seriously but they are also a poor excuse for a human being (to put it mildly).

Soderberg goes on to give a little lip service to "hoping it all works out" and so forth, but unless she was joking around she really doesn't hope it all works out.

That's just sad, really. Harry Truman must be spinning in his grave. [LINK]

It would be nice if "give 'em hell Harry" was here to give this deluded Democrat hell. But then again, Truman would probably be in the same boat as Zell Miller viz. how comfortable he would not feel in the Democratic Party of today.


LOST AT SEA

Among the more notable speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last month, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) described a United Nations treaty that the Senate is attempting to ratify without a floor vote and with the blessing of the Bush administration. The UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) (Treaty Doc. 103-39) cedes absolute control of 70% of the earth's surface, extending from the seabed to the airspace above, to a new UN regulatory agency called the International Seabed Authority. Through the treaty, that body could potentially derive powers to interfere with aspects of U.S. sovereignty from our corporations to the operations of our blue water Navy. The treaty would also create an international court with jurisdiction over nearly everything having to do with international waters.

LOST is not a new idea. Negotiated during the Carter years, it was still an open item when Ronald Reagan became president. President Reagan listened to his advisors debate the pros and cons of the treaty before he interrupted the debate and rejected it completely in 1982 and fired the negotiators who negotiated it. Reagan understood its impact to national sovereignty and refused to have any part of it. President Bill Clinton gave it new life when he signed it in 1994. Fortunately, Senator Jesse Helms saw to it that it never came before the Senate, so it never became US law.

But now, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) is determined to get LOST past the Senate. On February 25, 2005 Lugar sent it from the Foreign Relations Committee with unanimous support; however, he never allowed opponents to testify during the hearings. He has been trying to avoid a floor debate and vote, preferring to engineer its ratification using a Senate procedure known as "unanimous consent". This process would allow ratification without the troublesome complication of having a public record of who opposed or supported the treaty and how each Senator voted...continued...

Surely readers would not presume that those of Us who have written a proposal for reforming the unaccountable rider system would support another form of unaccountable voting as the Senate is attempting to do here with the support of the Bush Administration. And it bears noting that those who wonder why there is support on Our part at Rerum Novarum for the idea of striving to constitute a viable third party option in reality and not merely in theory need look no further than with issues such as this one. (Among others that could be noted if not for present time and space constraints.)


ONE DOWN, NINE TO GO

Between the insane anti-Christian assaults of the ACLU--one going on in Texas right now, others popping up like daisies just about everywhere else--and the reverberating effects of Campaign Finance Reform, the end of the First Amendment is nigh:

Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.

In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.

How in the world do they plan to enforce this nonsense? What if, say, one of the Iraq the Model guys declares support for an American presidential candidate in '08? What if Merde in France or The Shadow of the Olive Tree decide to write a post endorsing a candidate every single day during the '06 congressionals? None of these blogs are run by Americans, yet they're all readable here and they have all spoken about US politics at one point or another. How is the FEC gonna deal with that?

What scares me is that they just might find a way...continued...

Indeed this is a problematical issue -that somehow, the FEC will find a way to infringe upon the freedom of speech that is a defining feature of the blogosphere. The latter subject was dealt with at this weblog a few days ago in a multilink thread{1} and readers can go there to read the comments of your weblog host on some other threads dealing with this subject.


SWITCH HITTING

Long-time readers of this blog know that I no fan of the ACLU. Whatever they claim the C and L stand for, that organization has nothing but contempt for true American civil liberties. Perhaps Anti-American Communist Litigation Union would be a more accurate rendering of their initials? It would fit their history.

Anyway, Clinton Taylor has caught an ACLU lawyer in a huge case of conflict of interest. Here's an exerpt; you should really read the whole thing:

According to the ethics complaint, at the same time [ACLU attorney Kathy] Hall defended the Arkansas Child Welfare Agency Review Board (CWARB) against an ACLU lawsuit in the case of Howard v. CWARB, she also served as co-counsel for the ACLU in a case against an Arkansas school board -- McLaughlin v. Pulaski School District.

The two cases were not unrelated. In McLaughlin, Hall worked on behalf of the ACLU to sue a school district for restricting a gay teenager's freedom to speak about his homosexuality. In Howard, Hall opposed the ACLU, defending the CWARB's policy of not allowing gay couples to serve as foster parents.

Whether Ms. Hall liked CWARB's policy or not, her duty was to defend her client and to disclose any conflicts of interest. (James Balcom, chairman of CWARB, confirmed that he didn't learn of Hall's representation of the ACLU until the trial was nearly over, and only then from a witness rather than from Ms. Hall.)

---

Why didn't the ACLU speak up about Ms. Hall's likely conflict of interest, as it ought to have done? It's not like its top brass didn't know who she was. Two of the ACLU's lawyers opposing Ms. Hall and the CWARB were James Esseks, the litigation director of the ACLU's national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, and Leslie Cooper, a staff attorney for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

Their silence is especially curious, since Ms. Hall's ACLU co-counsel on the McLaughlin case were...Leslie Cooper and James Esseks, of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

NOW IMAGINE THE KERFUFFLE had a conservative lawyer, say a member of the Federalist Society, not only kept quiet about a conflict of interest, but then refused to ask her sole expert witness a few important questions that could have affected the trial's outcome -- and then lost the trial. The MSM would be all over her like pink on a pig.

I prefer to describe it as "stink on a monkey," but the point stands as rendered. What follows the above is how Hall misrepresented her anti-ACLU client. She filed a motion to keep the relevant testimony of a star witness for her client from entering the trial. She and the case judge ended up smearing that witness for the crime of being a Christian.

Like I said, the ACLU harbors nothing but contempt for true American civil liberties...[LINK]

Bryan is on target in noting the double standard that would be in place if the shoe was on the other foot here and if it was a conservative lawyer representing a conservative organization who tried to pull this kind of crap. The MSM only proves that they are biased when they make these kinds of omissions. In so doing, they vindicate further the value of the very blogosphere they so despise. (To ensure that the MSM does not get away with this kind of negligence as they did so often before the rise of modern alternative media outlets.)

Moving from the latest evidence of the biased nature of the MSM to the "sun shines on every dog's ass on occasion" department, we have the following...


SIGNS

I tend to think of Imperial Hubris author and former CIA terrorist specialist Michael Scheuer as a bit of a flake. On TV he comes across as slightly bizarre, and in his writing he comes across as a bit anti-Semitic and Osama-worshipping at the same time. And if his writing is any guide, he's a fairly mediocre left-of-center thinker when it comes to strategy, which means he isn't overly impressive.

Having thrown so many insults at Scheuer, let us now condemn him with faint praise: He may be right this one time. The old saying about broken clocks being right twice a day may apply to Scheuer's latest analysis (no link; I received it in email today from a listserv), which he draws from bin Laden's pre-election tape as it relates to the last couple of years of al Qaeda's public statements. Scheuer believes al Qaeda is set to strike the US, and soon.

After 9/11, bin Laden received sharp criticisms from Islamist scholars that dealt with the al-Qaeda chief's failure to satisfy several religious requirements pertinent to waging war. The critique focused on three items: (1) insufficient warning; (2) failure to offer Americans a chance to convert to Islam; and (3) inadequate religious authorization to kill so many people. Bin Laden accepted these criticisms and in mid-2002 began a series of speeches and actions to remedy the shortcomings and satisfy his Islamist critics before again attacking in the United States.

Scheuer believes the October 2004 tape, the one that showed up just prior to the election, completed the last step bin Laden believed he needed before being able to strike at the US in a mass casualty attack with a clear caliphascist conscience...continued...

Of course the above will not sway those deluded souls who cannot see the forest for the trees on the subject of the war on terror. However, for those who can it is not a comforting theory to ponder.

Moving from the deeply disturbing to the downright disgusting, we have another example of why the MSM cannot be trusted and why the long-standing McElhinney Media Dictum principle of the present writer may have to be elevated from dictum to proverb status at some point in the future:

CNN WHITEWASHING GUILIANA SGRENA

Over the weekend, I caught CNN removing a damning quote from a story about Italian Communist journalist Guiliana Sgrena, recently released from some form of captivity in Iraq for a reported $6 million ransom, about why she was in Iraq in the first place. She was there, in her own words, to agitate against America and the war--

Sgrena said she "risked everything" to challenge "the Italian government, who didn't want journalists to reach Iraq, and the Americans," who she said don't want the public to see "what really became of that country with the war, and notwithstanding that which they call elections."

I ran that quote in my post Sunday. It turns out CNN had also chopped out the next section. Fortunately I still have it. It indicates Sgrena was getting along amicably with her captors:

She said she told her captors they could not ask the Italian government to withdraw troops from Iraq -- "their political go-between could not be the government but the Italian people, who were and are against the war."

What--she was planning strategy with these goons? Then why was she on video tape begging for her release as though her life was in jeopardy? Perhaps because it gave her the chance to appear before the world and denounce the Americans, an activity that had taken up most of her time even when she was not held "captive" by anyone.

In the interests of truth, here is the original version of CNN's story as I received in email over the weekend. Ordinarily, I wouldn't reprint an entire article, but since CNN has removed the most relevant parts of it--the ones that actually speak to Sgrena's motives--I think it's a fair use...continued...

The article in its original form is posted in full after that point with the parts later excised put into bold font. Bryan notes that he was hardly the only one who caught CNN making edits without explanation{2} with this subject. But then again, CNN's bias against the war and the Bush Administration has hardly been a secret to those who have been paying attention lo this many years. And they are hardly the only network of the MSM to manifest this bias -even if they are the biggest of the networks not called FoxNews.


PLAYING HARDBALL

The Bush administration has cut aid to the Philippines from $124 million to about $87 million--about 30 percent. The reason for the cut is straightforward: Philippine President Gloria Arroyo is a turncoat who, having used the US to secure her re-election, has turned her back on the old US-RP alliance. She has even recently accepted $1.2 million in military aid from China, though China seems to be doing everything it can these days to crank up tensions throughout the Asian-Pacific region and is obviously not going out of its way to stay on Washington's good side. Perhaps "big brother" China is ready to make up for the shortfall from the loss of US funds? That doesn't seem likely, so Manila is trying to get the administration to reconsider the cut. That's even less likely. Given how old our alliance with the RP is, it's sad that it has come to this, but Arroyo needs to internalize a simple message--if you sidle up to our strategic adversaries, your loyalties will be questioned and your aid funds will take a corresponding hit...continued...

We can summarize Our view of this in five words: cut all foreign aid period.


Conservatives love to make the world a better place. They just prefer to use daisycutters.

And Democrats say that like it's a bad thing.

Seriously, in the past few years how many oppressed people have been freed by the work of Amnesty International or the Human Rights Campaign? A few dozen, at the most, and I'm being generous. And just since 9-11, how many oppressed people have been freed by US military might? Roughly 50 million or so, and counting?

Liberals believe in the value of talk for its own sake. Conservatives believe in results. Liberals talk, while conservatives get things done. [LINK]

The problem here is that Bryan is trying to outline this logically with those to whom logic is a foreign concept. He fails to recall Michael Savage's dictum that "extreme liberalism is not a political philosophy, it is a mental disorder." And one characteristic common to mental disorders is the inability to utilize reason and logic effectively in argumentation. This is a subject that We have touched on before at sundry times and in divers manners and it bears reiterating anew.

Essentially, there is an emotional component to liberalism that cannot be overlooked or underestimated: for it is the means whereby its purveyors have a kind of "superiority complex." They like to focus on minor subject matter or surface issues and make token gestures or statements about them to thereby feel as if they actually accomplished something meaningful. This is done while ignoring or playing down the more complex issues or substantive subjects involved. And one of the larger subjects involved that so-called "progressivists" do not want to face up to generally speaking is the reality of evil -a subject that we will deal with next in this sequence.


THE GRUESOME REALITY OF EVIL

US troops in Iraq have discovered two caches of corpses this week. The dead were victims of the insurgents--terrorists--that Italian Communist journalist Guilana Sgrena can't seem to find the time to say a negative word about.

The victims...well, read for yourself.

Authorities found 26 of the corpses late Tuesday in a field near Rumana, a village about 12 miles east of the western city of Qaim, near the Syrian border, police Capt. Muzahim al-Karbouli and other officials said.

Each of the bodies had been riddled with bullets apparently several days earlier. They were found wearing civilian clothes and one of the dead was a woman, al-Karbouli said.

South of Baghdad in Latifiya, Iraqi troops on Tuesday made another gruesome discovery, finding 15 headless bodies in a building inside an abandoned former army base, Defense Ministry Capt. Sabah Yassin said.

The bodies included 10 men, three women and two children.

Children. Those animals beheaded children.

Yet if we capture those responsible, if we have the gall to send them to Gitmo, there to await military tribunals or some other justice, we can be sure the ACLU will rise to defend them. The anti-war left, as exemplified by Guilana Sgrena, will embrace them.

Even though they beheaded children. [LINK]

This writer can think of at least one so-called "progressivist" who would find it more newsworthy that the US military may have detained children in Abu Ghirab rather than focusing on truly horrific news such as the Islamofascists beheading children!!!{3} We discussed the pseudo-"progressivist" illogic behind Abu Ghirab last year{4} and see no reason to presume anything different on this issue as of this writing.

And finally, lest We be accused of not having been critical enough on the Bush Administration in this thread (in reference to their monumentally stupid support for LOST), let this final subject suffice to balance the scales a bit more.

THE BUSH BORDER POLICY IS FOOLISH AND DANGEROUS

The above thread from Bryan Preston simply highlights yet more reasons why the borders of this nation need to be secured. The Bush Administration is doing a horrendous job here and they need to be held accountable for it. The question of how many "Bush's policies are all grand" Republicans will actually do this remains to be answered of course. For the record, registered Independents such as those of Us at Rerum Novarum are anything but optimistic about this matter but that is a subject for another time perhaps.


Notes:

{1} Though in truth, We were still working on the present thread at intermittently intervals at the time that this thread was posted. (Only to complete it today.)

{2} Michelle Malkin noticed this too.

{3} And yes, such a "concern" on this very subject was emailed to the present writer earlier today by someone they know who would readily identify themselves with the "anyone but Bush" crowd. To understand this writer's view of the overarching subject matter of Abu Ghirab, see the link in footnote four.

{4} Briefly on the Iraqi Prison Scandal (circa May 15, 2004)

Points to Ponder:

"Ideologues embrace a worldview that cannot be changed because they admit no evidence to the contrary." [Bill Moyers]

The Conscience of a Conservative:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: Though I may make some edits to this text, the following is what is currently slated to appear as a book review at Amazon.com in a few days. - ISM]

*****

A Primer for Sound Reasoning and Historical Perspective...

...can be found in this short volume by the late Arizona Senator and former Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Though the present writer has read numerous works since coming across the volume by the late Senator currently being reviewed, this is the one that first begin impressing upon his (at the time quite youthful) mind the logic behind the authentically conservative view of the world, of mankind, and of the core differences between liberal socialism and authentic conservatism. In shorthand, the differences between those views can be well distinguished by noting what the Constitution actually allows for the federal government to do and and what it is not allowed to do.

The authentic conservative recognizes the restrictions (and if change is desired moves to do this through proper channels such as amending the Constitution) while the liberal socialist merely seeks to impose their views on others without respect for the rule of law in society. Whatever pretensions exist among those who think they are genuinely conservative in their outlooks but in varying ways are not (such as President Bush or Patrick Buchanan to name two examples), this is the book that for all intensive purposes ignited the modern conservative movement.

For it is The Conscience of a Conservative probably deserves a good share of the credit for Ronald Reagan (i) abandoning the Democratic Party in 1962 (ii) giving the defining speech "a time for choosing" in October of 1964 in support of Goldwater's candidacy for president and (iii) provided a solid foundation for Reagan to cultivate his own conservative outlook in his tenure as governor of California and in two major campaigns for president. (In 1976 and again in 1980 when he won the first of his two terms as president.)

It bears noting that while there is more to conservative philosophy than what is noted in this book, what is noted here is a good overview -showing the applicability of conservative principles to a host of issues outlined in chapters with titles such as States' Rights, Civil Rights, Freedom for the Farmer, Freedom for Labor, Taxes and Spending, The Welfare State, and Education. A previous reviewer quoted a part of the book which this writer wants to reproduce here with some brief comments as they pertain to events subsequent to this book's initial publication runs:

"While there is something to be said for the proposition that spending will never be reduced so long as there is money in the federal treasury, I believe that as a practical matter spending cuts must come before tax cuts. If we reduce taxes before firm, principled decisions are made about expenditures, we will court deficit spending and the inflationary effects that invariably follow." (p. 65)

This observation proved to be prophetic in what happened in the 1980's with the budget deficits. (Though not with inflation which came down dramatically in that decade.) Those who know their history are aware that President Reagan proposed a combination of across the board tax cuts. However, that was intended merely to spur on the economy in the short term and not as a long-term proposition in and of itself. The long term proposition for handling the deficit was raising taxes and cutting spending simultaneously -indeed President Reagan got Congress to agree to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised in 1982. Of course the Democrat controlled House of Representatives never followed through with the promised spending cuts. This caused no shortage of problems because when taxes are cut and spending is not reduced at the same time. For even when the dynamic (as opposed to static) effects that tax cuts have on an economy are considered, with evils such as "base line budgeting" in place long-term deficits are an inevitability.)

Senator Goldwater recognized the problems of not equating tax cuts with spending cuts decades ago -only one of the many areas where this book proves itself to be somewhat prophetic. And it is nearly impossible to see the late Senator Goldwater being at all be happy with how a Republican controlled Congress and Republican president are handling these matters in 2005. Indeed, Senator Goldwater would not recognize himself in the Republican Party of today anymore than his friend the late Senator Hubert Humphrey would recognize himself in the Democratic Party of today. And this book contains ample instruction on how far these parties have strayed from their original principles. (As Goldwater notes towards the beginning of the book) the discomforting tendency of the Republican Party to mimic the Democratic Party preceding the publication of this book by a few decades.)

It was said that President Reagan in his last years did not remember much but he did remember not receiving those $3 in spending cuts from Congress for every $1 in tax raises he agreed to in the early 1980's. In light of how the Democrats pulled the same screwjob on President Bush Sr., one would think at some point the Republicans would wise up. They were on the receiving end of tax cuts without spending cuts accompanying them on two different occasions. We have seen them in the past four years do precisely what the Democrats did in the 1980's and 1990's. And since they have complete control of the purse strings, there is no excuse for what they are doing.

Unfortunately, the Republicans only seem to fight for core conservative principles when they are in a congressional minority. This is a track record that had better change soon if they want to avoid losing control of Congress -particularly since attempts to get power back with running on conservative principles will backfire when their opponents point out just how unconservative the Republican congresses of the past four years (with a Republican president) have really been. (Though in truth they accomplished next to nothing of an authentically conservative agenda since taking control in 1994 -their rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.) However, as this is detracting from the purpose of this review and this writer is looking like the Libertarian he is not, a short summation is in order for the benefit of those who read this review and are considering acquiring this book.

In summary, this book is a good starting reference for the authentic conservative position on many subjects. And authentic conservatism is something that seems to escape most people today who refer to themselves as "conservatives." With the exception of the final chapter of the book (titled "The Soviet Menace": a good read for historical perspective in the post-USSR world if nothing else these days), the rest of the book with only the most minor of editing could be reissued and be as serviceable a work in 2005 as it was in 1960. The only question remaining is if those with pretensions towards being "conservative" are really ready to listen to these things in 2005 that they were (to a significant extent) unwilling to listen to in 1960, 1970, 1980, or 1990.

Miscellaneous Threads of Interest:

The links in this post will be posted in roughly their chronological order with comments interspersed at my discretion. Any sources quoted will be in darkblue coloured font.

Our Worst Enemy (Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition)

Rabbi Lapin explains what he views as the worst enemy of Jews and it is not what you might suspect a rabbi to say if you are at all influenced by the impression that Hollyweird tries to portray Jews in general as.

Sadness of “Deep Throat” Revisited (Debbie Schlussel)

Debbie Schlussel points out the after effects of the movie "Deep Throat" that are conspicuously absent from those who want to celebrate it as one of the most important events in US history. It is difficult to say more about it without letting the cat out of the bag so read the link and you will see where she is coming from on this one.

Air America's Lousy Ratings (Michelle Malkin)

Michelle Malkin discusses the paltry ratings of Air America in the largest radio markets of the country and how they have fallen in the past year. Now granted, there are some markets where they are not as pathetic as they are generally speaking (such as up here in Seattle where they are doing a bit better than insignificant); however that is the exception rather than the rule.

The primary reason could not be more apparent and it is this: so-called "liberals" (who self-style themselves as "progressives") do not understand that talk radio to be successful requires substance and that is precisely what other mediums (such as television where pseudo-"progressivist" ideas do better) do not require. But to succeed where you do not have pictures to manipulate with sound bytes and canned commentary requires something different.

To succeed in talk radio, you must actually analyze and discuss subjects and also interact with the criticisms of others. Furthermore, these areas need to be handled in a reasonably intelligent manner if one is to be successful in this environment. And in the radio medium, the common irrational and illogical "talking points" kind of polemics common to the approach of so-called "progressivists" does not succeed for very long.

It is profoundly difficult for so-called "progressivists" to sustain their positions by sound rigorous logical thought and focused reasoning.{1} And for that reason, Air America would fail in the long term -after an initial period where the odd curiosity of a liberal talk radio network would wear off and attention to the substance of what was aired would take place by talk radio listeners. And it was therefore inevitable at that point that Air America would start losing the bulk of those who tuned in initially out of curiosity -which would be most of those listening.{2} But enough on that subject for now.

MoveOn.org: Blowing the Winds of Freedom (Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs)

Charles Johnson explains how movements such as MoveOn.org actually give the enemies of America reasons for optimism rather than for pessimism. For those whom the obvious can be difficult to comprehend, the following warning is issued:

DANGER - PARODY AHEAD!!!

How Big is the FEC Threat to Blogs? (Michelle Malkin)

Blogging and Bloggers (Brian Micklethwait of Samizdata)

The above links have some different takes on the idea of attempts to regulate media such as the blogosphere. Michelle Malkin links to a few different takes. Brian Micklethwait discusses instead the problem with governments which seek instead of enforcing existing laws the invention of new ones to the point where virtually anything someone does can be construed as a "crime" if you find a Johnny Cocherine-like attorney to play a game of parsing from various sources.

Now We at Rerum Novarum have gone over the problems that crop up when the law is perverted on countless occasions.{3} And rather than repeating Ourselves yet again, it seems appropriate to focus at this time on some of Mr. Micklethwait's comments on the rapid escalation of laws and how innocent persons are dealt with by attempts to use the law for more than its intended purpose.{4} (In this case, the person is a certain Brian McNab.{5}) With that in mind, Mr. Micklethwait's observations are worth considering:

What I would like would be a world in which a legislative entrepreneur who is thinking of thrashing out yet another of these stupid laws, just so he can get his name in legal lights, would pause, and, you know, consider, for fear of a shitstorm from the blogosphere, and thus eventually, after a month or two, from the regular old media that he has actually heard of. I want a world where other potential legislative entrepreneurs, instead read the blogs to see more McCain/Feingold horrors coming down the legislative tube, and try to get their brownie points by being praised by bloggers not for making one of these laws, but for unmaking a few.

I would like a world in which the [Brian] McNabs have a voice, before they are hit by these idiot laws and idiot regulators, and while, and for ever afterwards.

Well, I think and hope that we might be moving towards just such a world. The distributed stupidity of government is now, I would like to think, being challenged by the distributed intelligence of the rest of us. Previously, we masses did not have the means to distribute our intelligence, so to speak. Now, we do.

This McCain/Feingold thing looks like it could be the next Trent Lott/Dan Rather/Eason Jordan blogswarm furore-story. Like many bloggers, I am uneasy about living in a world where the blogosphere measures its success by how many high profile careers it wrecks. But how many potentially bad (McNab-nabbing) laws it stomps on? That I could live with far more happily.

I hereby propose the verb "McNab", to describe the process of innocent people being seriously screwed by crazy laws. As in: I've been McNabbed. Or maybe: I'm a McNab. By the sound of it, the original McNab deserves some good fame to set besides his horrendously bad treatment at the hands of the American criminal justice system.

As for another term being added to the blogging glossary, it is Our opinion at Rerum Novarum that this is an idea certainly worth considering -particularly in light of how common situations such as Brian McNab's have become in recent decades. Moving slightly from the subject of the FEC and blogging regulations to another subject which to some extent parallels it, we have the following thread from The Volokh Conspiracy:

Be Careful What You Wish For (Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy)

Libertarian legal professor Eugene Volokh explains (using law precedents from the past) why those who look for restrictions on so-called "hate speech" are setting themselves up to be snagged by what could be called the "law of unintended consequences" as a result. The very wisdom in recognizing a limit to what law can legitimately be used for{6} is well illustrated by considering the evils that result when laws and regulations are abused. This is precisely the reason why the Framers sought to limit government to begin with.{7} Unfortunately, Santayana's dictum again is vindicated since most people are unwilling to learn from history what happens when a society gets too concerned with creating laws rather than keeping law as a force within its proper boundaries.

Notes:

{1} I will not say that it is impossible for them to do this mind you. However, the so-called "progressivist" weltanschauung is (as a rule) built on emotionalism and subjectivist "feelings." For this reason, to attempt to defend it in a completely different context from which it is generally conceived will inexorably involve a lot of half baked (at best) attempts by apologists for that particular outlook.

{2} It is one thing to attract an audience to begin with and another altogether to hold said audience after they have been attracted to a talk radio show.

{3} One example of which can be read HERE.

{4} To remind the readers what the purpose of law is for, I reiterate the following classical formulation of Claude Frederic Bastiat -one of history's greatest proponents of authentic (as opposed to sham) liberty:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850)]

{5} For those unfamiliar with Brian McNab, here is a bit of history on him and his unfortunate circumstances:

McNab was a seafood importer who shipped undersized lobsters and lobster tails in opaque plastic bags instead of paper bags. These were trivial violations of a Honduran regulation - equivalent to a civil infraction, or at most, a misdemeanor. However, using creative lawyering, a government prosecutor used this misdemeanor offense as the basis for the violation of the Lacey Act, which is a felony. The prosecutor then used the Lacey Act charge as a basis to stack on smuggling and money laundering counts. You got that?

McNab was guilty of smuggling since he shipped lobster tails in bags that you can see through, instead of shipping them through bags that would frustrate visual inspection. He was guilty of money laundering since he paid a crew on his ship to "smuggle the tails." Although it turned out that the Honduran regulation was improperly enacted and thus unenforceable, the government did not relent. A honest businessman lost his property and his freedom: McNab is serving 8-years in prison. [Excerpt from a book review for Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything]

Is there a better example of the warning given by Professor Volokh than that of Brian McNab???

{6} See footnote four.

{7} You see my friends, all the prevarications about the "general welfare" clause of Article I Section VIII of the Constitution -used to justify the mountains of unconstitutional drivel that is in the federal budget- can be confuted by one reference to it by the Father of the Constitution himself -the man who was the primary drafter of the document- James Madison:

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." [James Madison: On the "General Welfare" clause in the U.S. Constitution]

And so that my statement may be affirmed "on the word of two or three witnesses" (Deut. xix,15; Matt. xviii,16; 2 Cor. xiii,1; Heb. x,28; cf. John viii,17), I offer the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, another of the Founding Fathers who was not unfamiliar with the Constitution and its intentions:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The ignorance politicians have of the Constitution -while problematical of course- is nonetheless not as bad as the people who will vote for whomever enriches their interests irrespective of what the Constitution actually says. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]

Today would have been the 64th birthday of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. Days like this are ones of more intense than normal reflection for me and it seems appropriate to note it here and ask the readers of this weblog if they could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul. (And for those who do not believe in this ancient custom, then prayers for my mother -who still has difficulties on anniversaries such as this- and the rest of the family would be appreciated.)



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Points to Ponder:

Left-wing bloggers believe they are part of the same "revolution" as right-wing bloggers are. They're not. The conservative blogs are the shock troops of a decades-long battle to seize back the culture. Conservatives have always had to rely on "alternative media" — magazines, AM radio, blogs — because the Mainstream Media closed the door to conservatives. And even when they let a few token ones in, they had to be labeled "conservative" first and journalists a distant second. The lefty blogs are something else entirely. They represent — much like the still-lame liberal talk radio and the new liberal think tanks — an attempt to copycat conservative successes. Their fight is not with the monolithic mainstream media (or academia) but with the usurpers. Politics is not a battle of technology. It is a battle of ideas, and therein lies all the difference. [Jonah Goldberg (circa 03/02/05)]

"We are Bad St. Blogs, We're Nationwide Worldwide" Dept.

St. Blogs own Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. was on MSNBC's Coast to Coast recently. Click on the latter link and check under "blog reads" if interested.

Briefly on Iwo Jima at the Sixtieth Anniversary:
(A Rerum Novarum Remembrance Thread)

Lane Core Jr. reminds us that Iwo Jima happened sixty years ago this month (and next). Go HERE to read what he has posted and view some black and white photographs of a triumph during WW II that cost nearly 20,000 American lives. I commented on this event two years ago in a post which can be read HERE and which includes a memorial eulogy from a military chaplain circa 1946.

For those who kvetch repeatedly about the toll thus far in Iraq, maybe these posts will help you gain a sense of perspective on this subject. One can certainly hope so anyway...

Miscellaneous Bits on the Terri Schiavo Situation:

For those interested in contributing to Terri Schiavo's cause, you can do so by making contributions to a PalPal account. A special thank you is extended on Our part to Beth of My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for the heads up on this matter. To make contributions, go HERE and click on the button to contribute what you can.

Also, We at Rerum Novarum have added the weblog links for both blogsforterri and also prolifeblogs to our side margin of links under the heading Ecumenical Jihad all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.
(On the Terri Schiavo Situation and the Culture War in General)

The words of the emailer will be in purple font.

Shawn,

Hi XXXX:

I may post this email tomorrow or the next day as it is a Terri
Schiavo related thread.

I read your post and the associated writings, and I fully concur. This alone won't solve the problem; it's just basically a desperate (?) effort to get the facts out in this particular case since so many are of the perception that she is completely brain-dead and think that justifies her being killed.

Frankly, we need to define the principle of life and what it constitutes. Definitions are the tools of thought and without them, it is difficult if not impossible for some people to differentiate between what is logical and what is not. There is too much nebulosity involved in the present discourse on the other side. When you have John Kerry on the national stage supposedly "agreeing" with the pro-life position but feeling that he cannot "impose it on others" ala the Cuomo line of argumentation, it is evident that core principles of the debate needs to be defined.

The first principle that needs to be defined in this debate is "what is life and where does it begin???" The other principles that need to be utilized are a recognition of the laws of identity and non-contradiction without which logical discourse is impossible. And Kerry's stance (and those of people who "reason" as he does) directly violates non-contradiction and equivocates disingenuously on identity.

Many who are comfortable with the idea of the "right to die" (read: right to put down a human as if she were a dog) in the case of the persistently and permanently vegetative disabled have reconsidered their position when confronted with the facts of this case.

I am not as close to the situation as you are (so I am going on your word here) but some progress -even if minor- is comforting in light of the horror of what we are hearing.

However, you're right--it doesn't address their belief that it's OK to kill in certain circumstances. For now, with time being so limited and legal options running out, it's all we can do for now.

I agree with one caveat: the argumentation that opposes these people must be consistent and it must be unwavering at that. There are issues that tie directly into the right to life that need to be recognized and supported. Someone who supports the right to life undermines their own cause when they seek to undermine the right of their neighbours to their faculties (aka "liberty") or production (aka "property") if you will. Likewise, someone who promotes the right to faculties or production but does not support the right to life undermine their own cause as well.

With prolifers and so-called "social conservatives" the right to life is the focus and with a degree of tunnel vision that is often exasperating to those of us who sympathize with what they strive to achieve.

George Bush is a case in point: he claims to support life but his administration endorses absurd regulations on faculties and production to the point to where his support of life is compromised. With libertarians and capitalists it is the rights to faculties (read: liberty) and production (read: property) which are the focus while they support a so-called "pro-choice" position which is self-defeating. With capitalists it is the right to production and sometimes faculties which is their focus -though the latter two oftentimes selectively apply the rights of the other to the extent that it helps them of course.{1} But I digress.

The culture of death we're in now will take time--and lost lives, unfortunately--before it's rectified. It seems that liberal groupthink loves the sanctity of life when it comes to criminals on death row, but no other lives are worthy. Sad commentary on their priorities and values.

Indeed.

ALL lives are worthy in the eyes of God; who are we to say we know better? I guess that doesn't matter to the Godless masses these days, though...

That is why we have to approach this with as much reason and logic as we can muster. They may not be people of faith but if they have good-will and are willing to consider an argument or position on its merits, then oftentimes such people can be reached even if it takes time and more effort than normal to do it.


Note:

{1} I go over this in greater detail at the following link:

The Fundamental Rights of Man Revisited (circa September 25, 2004)

You may find the approach taken against euthanasia in the above link to be particularly of interest since (at least implicitly) that is what Michael Schiavo is trying to do with his wife. I would argue that Terri's life may possibly be more solidly defended if a defense is made of her right to faculties (however diminished they happen to be) concurrent with the defense of life. (Along with tying into this the principle of society's collective or common good.) All of this is noted with greater exactness within the link above.

More on Terri Schiavo, an Activist Blogosphere Effort on Her Behalf, Etc.:

The recent Rerum Novarum inculcation thread on Terri Schavo and the fundamental rights of man elicited some email from those who are in the trenches for her cause. In light of the seriousness of this matter, I have selected the following email and am for publication at Rerum Novarum as per the Welborn Protocol. This appear to be a form letter of sorts sent out to bloggers who have discussed this issue either recently or in the past. Nonetheless, that does not mean that the letter itself is not well thought out or well intended. The writer's words will be in purple font with minor changes made to give life to the links that she sent.

Dear Shawn,

I am writing to invite you to become part of an organized effort among over 100 bloggers to help bring a just resolution to the plight of Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo is a disabled woman who has been denied appropriate medical treatment and whose life has been threatened for the past fifteen years. Right now there is a massive effort in the Blogosphere to first save her life and then restore her rights to appropriate medical treatment. You can help in this effort. Here's how:

1. Educate yourself on her situation. A good comprehensive website to start with is her family's official website [HERE]. You can find the latest breaking news on her case [HERE]. In addition, there are many other linked websites and blogs you can visit, and you can find your own sources with the help of your favorite search engine.

2. Get the word out. Email your family and friends, your local radio stations, newspapers, and anyone else you can think of.

3. Join the effort [HERE]. Since you have a blog, consider joining the blogburst and post about Terri on a daily basis. Contact the key people in Florida provided [HERE]. You also have an opportunity to participate in a pledge drive to raise funds to place a full page ad in the St. Petersburg Times, Terri Schiavo's local paper. Go [HERE] for more information. No doubt, there are other ways to get involved in the works. Check back [HERE] often for updates.

I know we can't all do everything, but if we all do what we can, we can make a difference. Please join our efforts to help save Terri Schiavo's life and provide her with the medical treatment she has been so long denied. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Beth Cleaver

Beth's Weblog
Blogs For Terri

Certainly I am quite willing to give an assist to this noble effort. However, let it be noted that (thus far) I am (to my knowledge) the only one who has provided a principle of argumentation capable of consistently defending Terri Schiavo in the entire blogosphere without indirectly undermining the other fundamental rights that singleissue advocates inexorably ignore. In doing this, I have taken it upon myself to reiterate and refine further a classical economic and legal model for an authentically conservative society where situations such as Terri Schiavo's would not occur or be sanctioned by any legal system worthy of being called "just." While this may not be as direct a service to Terri Schiavo as many who are involved in this struggle at the front lines; at the same time, all movements have to have both short term and long term strategists.

My approach to this is both long term and also (for the most part) transcends this circumstance to consider the underlying ramifications behind the so-called "rights" which certain parties claim to have over other people which in reality they do not. And in doing so, I must reiterate until enough people finally start grasping it what the bottom line of any defense of Terri Schiavo that crosses religious boundaries must entail.

That bottom line is the recognition that there are three fundamental rights of mankind that precede all laws ever written by mankind. Furthermore, all three of these rights stand together and must be recognized as such if defending one of them is to succeed in a permanent (as opposed to a transitory) manner. I have noted this countless times in the past and also admitted that before that I did not explicitly have the Terri Schiavo situation in mind in doing any of this.

Maybe it helps that I did not have any particular issues directly in mind initially except the overarching ones of (i) authentic freedoms as opposed to pseudo-"freedoms" and (ii) the role of law a just society in safeguarding said authentic freedoms. By implication, this involves an entire spectrum of issues{1} including those involved in the Terri Schiavo situation.

In summarizing this thread, I will again reiterate a point I have made on various occasions in the past including recently{2} -with slight modifications where warranted:

[Any] ranting about violations in [various legal/moral/social/political, etc.] areas have to be addressed systematically my friends and from the same core premises. This will require learning a new hermeneutic of argumentation to some extent but if we want to actually win this culture war -and not merely receive constant "stays of execution"- it is something that all of us who care about these issues must learn to do.

At its foundation, that is what must accompany all of these efforts on Terri Schiavo's behalf. Because if it does not, then one of two things will happen (i) Terri will be spared but this same circumstance will arise again -either with her or with someone else in a similar predicament or (ii) she will lose and those who campaigned for her life will learn nothing from their experiences to prevent a future event like hers from occurring.{3} My interest is in these kinds of situations not happening again. And that is why I approach this issue as I do and always will.

However, one person has a slim chance of getting an idea to be accepted across a broader continuum of philosophical or ethical outlooks. Therefore, those truly interested in helping not only the Terri Schiavo's of today but also those of tomorrow{4} do well to learn this and learn it fast lest again they make a prophet out of Santayana much as many people before them have done.

Having noted all of that, it seems appropriate to end this post with an article on the situation from Fr. Rob Johansen. Hopefully readers will be able to see in light of what Fr. Rob had to say why (i) it is important to approach this subject in a number of ways and (ii) why what I have proposed is the only viable way to procedurally mitigate against future situations such as this cropping up in our society. But that is all I will note on this subject at the present time except (of course) to note that Terri and her family will be in my prayers.


Notes:

{1} To see how they pertain to the subjects of a person's liberty/faculties and their production/property, see this link where I make a few clarifications to an earlier post where there was a bit of confusion on the part of some of the readers. (Including the individual whom I wrote the defense for in the first place.)

{2} The original form of this statement (reiterated HERE) can be accessed from the same source.

{3} And as far as future situations such as the Schiavo one, it is only a matter of when (and not if) it happens again. (If her supporters do not wise up on this and wise up soon.)

{4} In both cases, there are many of these whom the bulk of her supporters would not recognize. A classic example of this can be viewed in the link within footnote one. And as long as this fact goes unrecognized, we will inevitably have more Terri Schiavo situations crop up with greater frequency in the future. To kill the weed you have to pluck out the roots. And it is plucking out the roots which is what I recommend and have long recommended at this humble weblog.